CAR_Public/160707.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 135




                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN INC: Removes "Lopez" Suit to New Jersey District Court
817 CORP: "Bass" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BANK OF AMERICA: "Louisiana" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations
BRINKS INC: "Cruz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit in Texas Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CONAIR CORP: August 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CPI CARD GROUP: "Chipman" Sues Over Share Price Drop
CR ENGLAND INC: "Brown" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
DENSO CORP: "Landers" Sues Over Price Fixing of Ceramic Substrates

DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Exploding" Refrigerators
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Privacy Suit
FIVE GUYS: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Gender Bias in Pay Practices
FORD MOTOR: Customers Asked to Sign Confidentiality Agreement
FORD MOTOR: Car Woes Blamed on Female Plaintiffs' Driving Skills

GALT, CA: "Fisher" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
GAW MINERS: "Audet" Sues over Investment Fraud
GOOD TREATS: Faces "Rhoten" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations
H&M MAINTENANCE: "Duran" Suit Alleges FLSA, Co. Wage Act "Breach"
HALYARD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

HARRIS MARTIN: Aug. 1 Status Conference Set in Talcum Powder Suit
HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
HELIX ENERGY: Tex. Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
HONEST CO: Faces Class Actions Over Product Ingredients
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunroof Class Action

INTERCEPT PHARMA: September 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JTEKT CORP: Faces "Lane" Suit Alleging Antitrust Law Violation
KRAFT HEINZ: "Agles" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill.
LATERAL LINK: Former Recruiter Loses Misclassification Case
LKM ENTERPRISES: "Mahrous" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

MODELO HEALTH: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
MORGAN STANLEY: "Zajonc" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Fla.
NANT CAPITAL: "Solak" Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
NCR CORP: "Meadows" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Landowners Win Map Act Class Action
ONTARIO, CA: "Nevin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PACSUN: Judge Grants Class Certification in PAGA Suit
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PHILADELPHIA: Appeal in "Berry" Suit Pending in Penn. S.C.

REMCON ENTERPRISES: "Davies" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SIMON PROPERTY: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SPOTIFY USA: Faces Cal. Lawsuit Over Premium Subscription Service
SUBARU: Certain Loss Claims Over Takata Airbags Can Proceed
THERANOS INC: C.M. & S.G. Sues Over Fake Testing Machine

PREMIER CRU: Settles Wine Class Action, July 27 Hearing Set
PRIDE MOBILITY: Becomes Bellwether Antitrust Class Action in UK
REEL GROUP: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
RESOURCE AMERICA: "Gansman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
SYNTHES INC: Trial Commences in Suit Over Norian Bone Cement

TNG WAXING: "Lowe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
VISA: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Over High ATM Fees
VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $50MM in Civil Penalties to State of Texas
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Kiwi Customers Won't Get Emissions Compensation
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Promises Full Restitution to Consumers

VOLVO: Superior Court Grants New Trial in Crashworthiness Case
WAL-MART: "Manfredi" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill.
WALTER INVESTMENT: October 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA: "Barreiro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces Trial Over Alleged $900MM Scam





                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Removes "Lopez" Suit to New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. removes the suit: "ELDER AUGUSTIN LOPEZ,
ELBIN AUGUSTIN, ELIO PEREZ ESTEBAN, and all similarly situated
present and former employees of the defendants herein, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. 7-ELEVEN,
INC., ABC COMPANY, ALPESH PATEL, NICK PATEL, JENNY PATEL, SANJIV
JOSH, and JOHN DOE #1-5, JAMES DOE and JANE DOE #1-100, jointly,
severally, and individually, cv-03696-MAS-DEA (June 23, 2016)"
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer
County, to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Trenton Vicinage.

7-Eleven is an international chain of convenience stores that
operates, franchises and licenses some 58,300 stores in 17
countries. 7-Eleven Inc. is headquartered in the US city of Dallas

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard H. Bauch, Esq.
     BAUCH ZUCKER HATFIELD LLC
     871 Mountain Avenue, Suite 200
     Springfield, NJ 07081
     Phone: 973-376-4000
     Fax: 973-376-4033
     E-mail: rhb@bzh-law.com

           - and -

     Eric A. Welter, Esq.
     M. Wilson Stoker, Esq.
     WELTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1141 Elden Street, Suite 220
     Herndon, VA 20170
     Phone: 703-435-8500
     Fax: 703-435-8851
     E-mail: eaw@welterlaw.com
             mws@welterlaw.com


817 CORP: "Bass" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Sean Bass, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 817 Corp., d/b/a Gene's Haufbrau, Jason
Stalker and Liam Tyrrell individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01964 (D.S.C., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unlawfully
retained portions of tips received, compensatory damages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, compensatory damages,
treble damages pursuant to the South Carolina Payment of Wages
Act, reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred, restitution of
wages and gratuities improperly retained by Defendant and all such
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

817 Corp, is a South Carolina limited liability company that
operates Gene's Haufbrau, a restaurant located at 817 Savannah
Highway, Charleston, SC 29407 where Plaintiff was employed as a
server.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
     MULLANEY LAW
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone & Fax (800) 385-8160
     Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased shares of Ambac
Financial Group, Inc. ("Ambac Financial") between November 13,
2013 and June 30, 2015.  You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the
Southern District of New York.  To get more information go to:
zlk.9nl.com/ambac or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email
at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free:
(877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ambac made
materially false and misleading statements and omitted material
facts concerning the Company's losses and loss exposure on its
public finance bond portfolio, risk management, and internal
controls.  The complaint further alleges that these misstatements
allowed the stock to trade at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

Following the June 29, 2015 revelation that Puerto Rico would
likely default on upcoming interest payments, and that as a
result, Ambac was potentially liable for up to $2.5 billion worth
of Commonwealth debt the Company insured, Ambac stock fell
approximately 29%, causing investors substantial losses.  Then on
May 11, 2016, Ambac admitted in an SEC filing that management "had
identified a material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting."

If you suffered a loss in Ambac Financial you have until
August 29, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Louisiana" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America,
N.A., Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Credit
Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, Nomura International PLC, Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh
Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04151 (S.D.N.Y, June 14, 2016), seeks damages for
violations of federal antitrust laws; reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses; and such further relief for violation of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds denominated in various currencies and allegedly colluded
with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to and
purchased from investors in the secondary market.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm
with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon
Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a
subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of
business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ,
England.

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity
headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense
Cedex, 92920 Paris, France.

Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New
York.

Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York.

Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of
business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England.

Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders
employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Telephone: (212) 554-1400
     Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
     Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
            avi@blbglaw.com

          - and -

     Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
     Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
     David Kaplan, Esq.
     Lucas Gilmore, Esq.
     Brandon Marsh, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858) 720-3183
     Fax: (858) 793-0323
     Email: blairn@blbglaw.com
            benjaming@blbglaw.com
            davidk@blbglaw.com
            lucasg@blbglaw.com
            brandonm@blbglaw.com

          - and -

     Scott Martin, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     33 Whitehall Street
     14th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (646) 357-1100
     Fax: (212) 202-4322
     Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     William P. Butterfield, Esq.
     Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
     Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
            wbutterfield@hausfeld.com
            tkearns@hausfeld.com
            slafreniere@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
            bsweeney@hausfeld.com
            clebsock@hausfeld.com


BRINKS INC: "Cruz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Carlos Cruz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brink's, Inc., Jeffrey Hill and any other
related entities, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80975 (N.Y. Sup.,
June 15, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Laws.

Defendant is involved in armored car transportation, money
processing, long-distance transport of valuables, vaulting and
other value-added solutions with principal place of business
located at 652 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11550. Plaintiff
was employed as a driver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Tel: (516) 873-9550


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Suit in Texas Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Union Of Painters & Allied Trades District Council
No. 35 Pension Plan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., CBL &
Associates Limited Partnership, Stephen D. Lebovitz, Farzana K.
Mitchell and John N. Foy, Case 1:16-cv-00248 (E.D. Tenn., June 23,
2016), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of CBL between August 9, 2011 and May 24, 2016, inclusive.

Defendant CBL is a self-managed, self-administered, fully
integrated real estate investment trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
     Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: 615/244-2203
     Fax: 615/252-3798
     E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
             jmartin@rgrdlaw.com


CONAIR CORP: August 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

If you bought a Conair(C) Infiniti Pro hair dryer, a class action
lawsuit may affect your rights.

Includes 1875 watt Infiniti Pro models 259 and 279 A federal court
authorized this notice.  This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Consumers have sued Conair Corporation ("Conair") claiming its
Infiniti Pro 259 and 279 model 1875 watt hair dryers are
defective.  Personal injury and property damage claims are not
included in or affected by this lawsuit.

The Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf
of California and New York residents that purchased a Conair 259
or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair dryer, anytime after
August 15, 2009.

The Court has not decided whether Conair did anything wrong. There
is no money available now and no guarantee there will be. However,
your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice to make.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT:

DO NOTHING
Stay in this class action lawsuit.  Await the outcome.  Give up
certain rights.  By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of
sharing in money or benefits that may be recovered through trial
or settlement, but you will be legally bound by orders and
judgments of the Court and will give up the right to sue Conair
separately for the legal claims in this lawsuit.

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED
Get out of this class action lawsuit.  Get nothing from it.  Keep
rights.  If you ask to be excluded, you will keep your rights to
sue Conair separately for the same legal claims made in this
lawsuit, but you will give up your right to possibly share in
money or benefits if they are awarded in this case.

These options are explained in this notice.  To exclude yourself,
you must act by August 9, 2016.

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this notice?
A court authorized this notice because you, or someone in your
family, may have purchased a 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt
hair dryer sold by Conair sometime between August 15, 2009 and
now.  The Court has certified this case as a class action lawsuit
and you have the right to know about the lawsuit, and about your
options, before the case goes to trial.  This notice explains the
lawsuit, your legal rights, and your options.

Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California is overseeing this case. The case
is titled, Cynthia L. Czuchaj, et al. v. Conair Corporation, Case
No. 13CV01901 BEN (RBB).

2. What is a class action and who is involved?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people, called "Class
Representatives" (in this case Cynthia L. Czuchaj and Patricia
Carter) sue on behalf of other people that have been affected by
the same unlawful conduct and harmed in the same way.  Together
all of these people are called a "Class" or "Class Members".  The
Court resolves the claims made in the lawsuit for all Class
Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.
The people who filed the lawsuit are called the Plaintiffs, and
the company they sued, Conair, is called the Defendant.

3. Why is this lawsuit a class action?
The Court decided that the lawsuit satisfies all of the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court's Orders and Opinions
explaining its decision are available at
www.ConairClassAction.com

THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT
4. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit is about whether the 259 and 279 Infiniti Pro 1875
watt hair dryers sold by Conair have defectively
designed heating coils and electrical cords which cause the dryers
to fail, and sometimes injure consumers.

The lawsuit claims these Conair hair dryers have (1) a motor that
shakes excessively causing coils inside the dryer to touch, short
circuit, and in some instances, shoot coils or flames from the
barrel (the "Coil Defect"), and (2) an electrical cord that is too
short and stiff that, when bent, the cord can break wires and
electrical insulation causing electrical shock and fire (the "Cord
Defect").

Personal injury and property damage claims are not included in or
affected by this lawsuit.  If you have been injured or your
property has been damaged by one of these Conair hair dryers, you
may bring a separate lawsuit against Conair for reimbursement of
medical expenses, pain and suffering, and damage to property.
Staying in this lawsuit will not prevent you from bringing those
claims, but you must hire a separate attorney and bring a
separate claim against Conair.

5. How does Conair respond to the lawsuit?
Conair states that their 259 and 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair
dryers are properly designed and do not contain any defects.  They
further claim that any problems were caused by failure to follow
their safety instructions.

6. Has the Court decided who is right?
No.  The Court has not made a decision regarding the claims made
in this lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs will present
their case and Conair will present their defenses at a trial.
QUESTIONS? Call 1-844-286-9535 Toll Free, or visit
www.ConairClassAction.com

7. What benefits are the Plaintiffs asking in this lawsuit?
The Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to obtain reimbursement of
some or all of the price consumers paid to purchase the hair
dryers.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS
8. How do I know if I am part of the Class?
The Class includes: All California and New York residents who
purchased either a model 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 watt hair
dryer, between August 15, 2009 and the present, sold by Defendant
Conair Corporation directly or through a retailer for primarily
personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale.

9. Which Conair hair dryers are included?
Infiniti Pro by Conair 1875 watt hair dryers with model number 259
and 279 are included in this lawsuit.

10. I haven't had a coil or cord issue with my hair dryer, am I
included?
Yes. You are included in this lawsuit even if your hair dryer has
not had a cord or coil issue yet.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
If you believe you are a Class Member, you have to decide whether
to stay in the Class or exclude yourself from it by August 9,
2016.

11. What happens if I do nothing?
If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class. You will
keep the possibility of receiving money or benefits
from this lawsuit, but you will give up your right to sue or
continue to sue Conair -- as part of any other lawsuit -- for
the same legal claims made in this class action. You will be bound
by all orders and judgments of the Court.

12. What happens if I exclude myself?
If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be able to
receive any money or benefits from this lawsuit
if they are awarded or obtained, but you will keep your right to
sue Conair as part of another lawsuit for the
same claims made in this case.  You will not be bound by any of
the Court's orders or judgments.

13. How do I ask to be excluded from the lawsuit?
To ask to be excluded, you must complete and sign the enclosed
"Opt-Out Form".  The Opt-Out Form must be postmarked no later than
August 9, 2016 and mailed to: Conair Class Action Notice
Administrator P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI 02940-3416
QUESTIONS? Call 1-844-286-9535 Toll Free, or visit
www.ConairClassAction.com

14. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue Conair for the same thing
later?
No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue
Conair for the claims made in this lawsuit. If you
have a pending lawsuit against Conair for the same claims made in
this lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
15. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court appointed the law firms of Odenbreit Law, APC, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer, and Bisnar|Chase LLP to represent you and other
Class Members.  Together, the lawyers are called Class Counsel.
You will not be charged for the work the lawyers have and will
perform.  If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you
may hire one at your own expense.

16. How will the lawyers be paid?
If you participate in this lawsuit, you will not be required to
personally pay attorneys' fees or expenses to Class Counsel.  This
is true whether or not they win or lose this case.  Class Counsel
will be paid only if the Class wins at trial or if the case
settles.  If that happens, the attorneys' fees will be paid by
Conair or as a percentage of any monetary judgment or settlement
in favor of the Class as ordered by the Court. If there is no
recovery, there will be no attorneys' fees paid to the lawyers.

THE TRIAL
17. How and when will the Court decide who is right?
Judge Benitez set the case for trial on September 13, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. During
the trial, a jury or the Judge will hear all of the evidence and
decide whether Plaintiffs or Conair are right about the claims in
the lawsuit.

There is no guarantee Plaintiffs will win, or that they will get
money or benefits for the Class.

18. Do I have to come to the trial?
No. You do not need to attend the trial. Class Counsel will
present the case for Plaintiffs and Conair will present
its defenses.  You, or your own lawyer, are welcome to come at
your own expense.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
19. Are more details about this lawsuit available?
This notice summarizes the class action lawsuit against Conair.
More details are contained in the court
documents, which can be reviewed at www.ConairClassAction.com
You may also call 1-844-286-9535 toll free or write to Conair
Class Action Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 43416, Providence, RI
02940-3416 for more information.  Do not contact the Court or the
Clerk's Office.


CPI CARD GROUP: "Chipman" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Sterling Chipman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CPI Card Group Inc., Steven
Montross, David Brush, Jerry Dreiling, Bradley Seaman, Nicholas
Peters, Robert Pearce, David Rowntree, Tricor Pacific Capital
Partners (Fund IV), Limited Partnership, Tricor Pacific Capital
Partners (Fund IV) US, Limited Partnership, Tricor Pacific
Capital, Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
CIBC World Markets Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated,
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. and Griffiths Mcburney Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04539 (S.D. N.Y., June 15, 2016),
seeks compensatory damages, interests thereon, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees
and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the
Securities Act of 1933.

CPI is a provider of payment card production and related services,
offering a single source for credit, debit and prepaid debit cards
including Europay, MasterCard and Visa chips, personalization,
instant issuance, fulfillment and mobile payment services. It
issued an IPO on October 9, 2015.

EMV cards were significantly over-inventoried with Europay,
MasterCard and Visa cards having increased purchases in the first
half of 2015 far in excess of card issuance thereby resulting in a
massive backlog of cards at those larger issuer customers.
Defendant failed to disclose these material facts.

Chipman purchased CPI common stock traceable to the IPO, and lost
substantially upon corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     Marshall Dees, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Telephone: 770/392-0090
     Fax: 770/392-0029
     Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
            mdees@holzerlaw.com


CR ENGLAND INC: "Brown" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Brown, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. C.R. England, Inc. d/b/a Premier Truck
Driving School, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01613-C (N.D. Tex.,
June 15, 2016), seeks overtime wages with damages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre and post
judgment interest on all compensation due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Premier is a trucking company, providing transportation and
logistics services to customers throughout the country with
principal office at 1230 S. Hwy. 67, Cedar Hills, Texas 75104,
where Plaintiff was employed as a commercial truck driver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Dortch, Esq.
     Benton Williams II, Esq.
     COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 100
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 712-9500
     Facsimile: (214) 712-9540
     Email: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com
            benton.williams@cooperscully.com

          - and -

     Tom Carse, Esq.
     CARSE LAW FIRM
     6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401
     Dallas, TX 75248
     Telephone: (972) 503-6338
     Facsimile: (972) 503-6348
     Email: tom@carselaw.com


DENSO CORP: "Landers" Sues Over Price Fixing of Ceramic Substrates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Landers Autogroup and similarly situated automotive dealers on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Denso Corporation, Denso International America,
Inc., NGK Insulators Ltd., NGK Automotive Ceramics Usa, Inc.,
Corning International Kabushiki Kaisha and Corning Incorporated,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12194 (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2016),
asserts unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and
other relief pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust
Act,.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and
allocate the market and customers in the United States for ceramic
substrates.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com
            ablum@manteselaw.com

          - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
            dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
     Yifei Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            joel@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            vicky@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     Email: sraiter@larsonking.com


DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Exploding" Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that after
landing a $36 million settlement for owners of RVs and boats with
refrigerators said to cause fires and explosions, the plaintiffs'
law firm is going after the defendant's main competitor over
products with the same problem.

At least 3,000 refrigerators made by Pompano Beach-based company
Dometic Corp. have leaked flammable gas and caused fires since
1997, according to a complaint filed on June 24 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

"We believe this is an important issue for many consumers across
the country that we hope to assist," said Adam Moskowitz --
amm@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables,
one of the lawyers who filed the complaint.

Not all of the named plaintiffs have experienced refrigerator
fires.  But they claim they suffered economic damages because they
paid more for their boats and RVs than they would have if they had
known about the alleged defect.  They also claim fixing the
problem would require replacing the refrigerator at a "significant
cost."

Dometic issued two recalls related to more than 955,000
refrigerators in 2006 and 2008, retro-fitting refrigerators with
cooling unit devices.  But the complaint alleges those changes did
not solve the underlying issue, which is that the boiler tubes
tend to corrode and leak chemicals.

"Plaintiffs and class members should not have to wait until they
experience a dangerous fire to seek relief for the defect," the
complaint states.

The complaint also claims Dometic concealed from consumers that
the recall did not fix the underlying defect.

The case was filed by Coral Gables firm Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, West Palm Beach firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart
& Shipley and Scottsdale, Arizona, firm Zimmerman Reed.
Zimmerman Reed learned of the alleged defect during its three
years of litigation against Norcold Inc., a competing refrigerator
manufacturer. A federal judge in central California preliminarily
approved a $36 million settlement for that class in March.

The Dometic lawsuit comes two months after a similar complaint was
filed in San Francisco federal court by Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.

In a statement responding to that lawsuit, Dometic refuted the
plaintiffs' claims.

"Dometic's opinion is that the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them," the April 22 statement
said.

A marketing representative for the company did not respond to a
request for comment on the Florida lawsuit on June 24.

The newer of the two lawsuits covers owners of Dometic
refrigerators in Florida, California, Minnesota, Georgia and North
Carolina.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Denies Class Certification in Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Jose has denied class certification in a long-running case
claiming that Facebook Inc. disclosed users' personally
identifiable information to advertisers when they clicked on some
Facebook ads.

U.S. District Senior Judge Ronald Whyte wrote that individualized
nature of the plaintiffs' claims weighed against class treatment,
but the reasoning behind his decision will remain a mystery for at
least two weeks.  All but three pages of Whyte's 19-page order
issued on June 28 were redacted.  The judge wrote that he'd give
the parties two weeks to seek to seal any "confidential
information" revealed in his order.

The ruling comes in a case that dates back to 2010, when several
separate proposed class actions were consolidated before then-U.S.
District Chief Judge James Ware.  The suits alleged Facebook sent
so-called "referer headers" to advertisers when users clicked a
Facebook ads.  Plaintiffs alleged that prior to July 2010 the
headers transmitted information could allow an advertiser to
identify the user who clicked a given ad despite Facebook's
promises to only share anonymized data about users.
In 2011, Judge Ware dismissed all claims that the plaintiffs had
failed to show any actual harm or that their personally
identifiable information had any value.  The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, however, revived plaintiffs' breach of
contract and fraud claims finding that the plaintiffs could have
been harmed by both "the dissemination of their personal
information and by losing the sales value of that information."

After Judge Ware's retirement, the case was reassigned to Judge
Whyte.  In a separate order from his class certification decision
on June 28, Judge Whyte partially granted Facebook's latest motion
to dismiss the case.  He knocked out the individual claims of one
of the two named plaintiffs, Katherine Pohl, finding that she had
only clicked on one Facebook ad during the relevant period.  That
ad routed her to the advertiser's internal Facebook page, which
Whyte found did not reveal any of her personal information. Whyte,
however, found that named plaintiff Wendy Marfeo did have standing
to sue.

Kassra Nassiri of San Francisco's Nassiri & Jung, who represents
the plaintiffs, didn't immediately respond to an email message.

A Facebook spokesperson said that the company is "pleased that the
court ruled in our favor and determined that the case should not
proceed as a class action."


FIVE GUYS: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Gender Bias in Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JODY FINEFROCK, JULIA FRANCIS, and SUSAN BARNINGER, individually
and on behalf of a collective of others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIVE GUYS OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-
01221-SHR (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2016), alleges gender
discrimination in employee pay practices.

Defendant Five Guys Operations, LLC owns and operates the
corporate-owned Five Guys restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
     Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
     MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
     2041 Herr Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17103
     Phone: (717) 260-3854
     Fax: (717) 233-8133
     E-mail: lweisberg@mwcfirm.com
             dcummings@mwcfirm.com

        - and -

     George A. Hanson, Esq.
     Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 714-7100
     Fax: (816) 714-7101
     E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
             ricke@stuevesiegel.com


FORD MOTOR: Customers Asked to Sign Confidentiality Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Sullivan, writing for News.com.au, reports that trading in
your car usually doesn't involve signing a confidentiality
agreement, but that's what Ford has asked some of its customers to
do before agreeing to purchase their allegedly dodgy second-hand
cars.

A class action involving thousands of disgruntled Ford customers
began in the NSW Federal Court on June 29.  The company is accused
of misleading and deceptive conduct in selling 22 different models
of Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between 2011 and this year.

The 70,000 affected models are equipped with the Ford PowerShift
transmission, which promises to deliver "acceleration much
smoother than a conventional automatic".

The PowerShift transmission has some of the features of a manual
gearbox and is supposed to drive like an automatic.  But some
customers say their PowerShift cars shudder and jerk unexpectedly,
slow down suddenly or turn themselves off altogether.

While the class action already involves thousands of people, the
court on June 29 heard that many more people could have been
affected, but are unable to speak up due to "confidentiality
constraints".

News.com.au spoke to several unhappy Ford customers who were so
fed up with their PowerShift transmission cars that they traded
them in.  "I wanted to be rid of that car because it was a lemon,"
one man said.

But before the deal was finalized, some customers were asked to
sign a document agreeing to never take legal action or make
"disparaging comments" against Ford in the future.

"You agree that you will not take any actions . . . which would
have the effect of interfering with or preventing the normal
trading activities of Ford Australia or any other authorized Ford
dealer," states the document, which news.com.au has obtained.
"This offer is subject to being kept strictly confidential between
you and Ford Australia," the document said.

This kind of agreement is highly unusual, says Diane Chapman --
diane@bannisterlaw.com.au -- from Bannister Law, the firm
launching the class action.

"Usually when you trade in a car you don't have to sign an NDA,"
Ms Chapman told news.com.au.

"It's a bit of a threatening document for someone who doesn't have
any legal understanding.  Most people wouldn't know they need to
get legal advice," she said.

"That just indicates that there is a real problem with the
vehicles and Ford don't want anyone to know.  We're concerned that
people are so desperate to get rid of these vehicles that they'll
sign anything they need to do in order to be safe."

While she could not put a figure on the number of faulty
PowerShift transmission cars currently on the road, Ms. Chapman
said Ford was yet to acknowledge the problem.

"They're just putting them back in the lot and reselling them,"
she said.

A Ford spokeswoman told news.com.au she couldn't comment on
ongoing litigation, but that the company "encourages customers to
work with their local dealers on their individual circumstances."
The class action case against Ford is built on the experience of a
Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life"
after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February
this year.

The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015.
In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without
difficulty.  A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the
vehicle faster than 80km/h.  The vehicle was shaking. Then an
error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating."
Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car,
sudden gear changes and gear-skipping.

The class action lawsuit alleges the cars are not of acceptable
quality, as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford
knew of the problems.  The vehicles have never been recalled.
The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.

The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000
would be $1.75 billion.


FORD MOTOR: Car Woes Blamed on Female Plaintiffs' Driving Skills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Sullivan, writing for News.com.au, reports that it's a
cliche so worn, it's almost comical -- women are bad drivers.
That old stereotype is at the centre of a potential billion-dollar
class action case against Ford over 70,000 allegedly dodgy cars.

Thousands of disgruntled Ford customers were set to begin legal
proceedings on June 29 against the company, accusing it of
misleading and deceptive conduct in selling 22 different models of
Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles between 2011 and this year.

The affected models are equipped with the Ford PowerShift
transmission, which promises to deliver "acceleration much
smoother than a conventional automatic".

"The dual clutch transmission has some of the features of a manual
gearbox but it drives like an automatic," AutoExpert's John
Cadogan said.

"It's meant to function exactly like an automatic."
But cars with Ford PowerShift transmission have been nicknamed
"shutterboxes" by unhappy customers because they shudder and jerk
unexpectedly.

When Leanne Glasser first drove the Ford Fiesta PowerShift she
bought for her daughter Dani's 17th birthday in 2010, she knew
something was wrong.

"The car would shudder at the intersection. You couldn't make a
turn confidently because you didn't know what it was going to do,"
Mrs. Glasser told news.com.au.

"My husband tried [driving the car] and he wasn't happy.  He
phoned Ford and they said, 'No, it's fine.  It just needs to learn
the driver'.  We thought that was odd," she said.

Dani, now 22, had just acquired her license and was nervous about
driving the car, but persevered for three years, avoiding long
trips and highways.

"Then one day, the car stalled mid-drive," Mrs. Glasser said.  "It
went from 60km/h to 10km/h while my daughter was driving on a busy
road.  The guy behind her nearly hit her and he got out of the car
and he was furious with her.

"She was on the side of the road shaking and crying.  She wouldn't
drive the car because she didn't feel safe."

During multiple conversations with Ford staff, both Mr. and Mrs.
Glasser were told their daughter's driving ability was the
problem.

"I said to Ford, 'My daughter's life is in your hands'.  They said
'It's the way you have to drive the car.  You're not understanding
how the car drives, it needs to learn the driver'. We'll never
touch a Ford again," Mrs. Glasser said.

She's now one of the plaintiffs in the class action case launching
on June 29 by Bannister Law.

"Ford customers are disappointed at the way they are being treated
when they report the problems with their transmissions and
gearboxes to their dealers," said Diane Chapman from Bannister
Law.

"Overwhelmingly, they are being told they are not driving their
vehicles properly, that it is their fault and they are being made
to feel stupid."

On the Ford Class Action Facebook page, other women claim they
have also been told their driving is the cause of their car
problems.

"I fought with them for 10 months about it and I was belittled and
made to feel like an idiot," one woman wrote.

"Comments like 'it's probably the way you drive' and 'let me
explain to you how a gearbox works', like I'm some kind of idiot.
I felt like because I was a women they were suggesting that a) my
driving is poor and b) I must not know how a car works.  It was
not until my fiance (male) took the car in and spoke to them that
they even acknowledge the issue."

News.com.au understands these are not isolated cases and several
other female plaintiffs were told similar things by Ford staff.
In a statement to news.com.au, a Ford spokeswoman defended the
company's PowerShift technology.

"Ford's PowerShift transmission uses an advanced configuration
that provides exceptional powertrain efficiency, along with the
potential for unique shift feel compared with conventional
automatics," she said.

"While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation we encourage
customers to work with their local dealers on their individual
circumstances."

But Mr. Cadogan says Ford's PowerShift transmission is a new
engineering idea they "managed not to perfect".

"The problem lies with the clutch packs in the transmissions.  The
packs are under-engineered and they keep failing," he said.
"There are significant loads on car transmissions and they need to
be designed for durability.  These transmissions are absolutely
not compatible with that concept in mind."

The class action case against Ford is built on the experience of a
Victorian woman Billie Capic who was "frightened for her life"
after a power loss while driving her 2012 Focus Sport in February
this year.

The $29,000 car had already lost power a number of times in 2015.
In October, she was unable to change gears or use reverse without
difficulty.  A fortnight later, she was unable to drive the
vehicle faster than 80km/h.  The vehicle was shaking.  Then an
error message showed on the dash: "Transmission overheating."
Miss Capic also experienced uncontrolled movement of the car,
sudden gear changes and gear-skipping.

The class action lawsuit alleges the cars are not of acceptable
quality, as defined under Australian Consumer Law and that Ford
knew of the problems.  The vehicles have never been recalled.
The action seeks refunds or the difference between the purchase
price and the true value of the vehicles, as well as aggravated
damages.

The cost of refunding 70,000 cars at an average price of $25,000
would be $1.75 billion.


GALT, CA: "Fisher" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Rod Fisher, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of Galt, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
at-00719 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and
other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of
suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Barreiro worked for the City of Galt for 3 years without being
paid overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Telephone: (916) 446-4692
     Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


GAW MINERS: "Audet" Sues over Investment Fraud
----------------------------------------------
Denis Marc Audet, Michael Pfeiffer, Dean Allen Shinners, And Jason
Vargas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Homero Joshua Garza, Stuart A. Fraser,
Gaw Miners, LLC, and Zenminer, LLC, (d/b/a Zen Cloud), Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00940 (D. Conn., June 15, 2015), seeks damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Connecticut
Uniform Securities Act.

Defendants sold products and investment contracts they claimed
would yield profits from mining or otherwise investments in
virtual currency. This turned out to be a scam, similar to a Ponzi
scheme and Plaintiff lost substantially as a result.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     29 S. Main St., Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: mkindall@izardnobel.com
             rizard@izardnobel.com

          - and -

     Marc Seltzer, Esq.
     Kathryn Hoek, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 789-3100
     Fax: (310) 789-3150
     E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             khoek@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Seth Ard, Esq.
     Matthew Allen, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
     New York, NY 10019-6022
     Tel: (212) 336-8330
     Fax: (212) 336-8340
     E-mail: mallen@susmangodfrey.com
             sard@susmangodfrey.com


GOOD TREATS: Faces "Rhoten" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN V. RHOTEN, v. GOOD TREATS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation; GOOD TREATS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation dba DUNKIN DONUTS; and DOES 1  through 100,
inclusive, Case No. : BC624911 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles-Central, June 23, 2016), alleges violations of the Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ali R. Moghaddami, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALI R. MOGHADDAMI
     333 E. Glenoaks Blvd., Ste. 202
     Glendale, CA 91207
     Phone: (818) 500-4111
     Fax: (818) 500-4144


H&M MAINTENANCE: "Duran" Suit Alleges FLSA, Co. Wage Act "Breach"
-------------------------------------------------------------
AARON DURAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H&M MAINTENANCE, LLC;
CBRE, INC.; 1290 BROADWAY, LLC; and MICHAEL TREAT, an individual,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01568 (D. Col., June 21, 2016), alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers.

H&M Maintenance LLC provides building maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John A. Culver, Esq.
     BENEZRA & CULVER, P.C.
     633 17th Street, Suite 2610
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 716-0254
     E-mail: jaculver@bc-law.com

        - and -

     Gregory A. Hall, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. HALL
     3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
     Denver, CO 80206
     Phone: (303) 320-0584
     E-mail: gregory@federallaw.com

        - and -

     Raja Raghunath, Esq.
     WORKPLACE RIGHTS PROJECT
     UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW
     2255 E. Evans Ave., Rm. 463A
     Denver CO 80208
     Phone: (720) 808-1231
     E-mail: raghunathlawfirm@gmail.com


HALYARD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Halyard Health, Inc. ("Halyard" or the
"Company"), Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("Kimberly-Clark") and
certain of the companies' officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 16-cv-05093, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than Defendants who: (1) purchased or otherwise
acquired Kimberly-Clark securities on or after February 25, 2013
and subsequently received Halyard securities pursuant to Kimberly-
Clark's spin-off of Halyard, effective as of October 31, 2014;
and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Halyard securities
between October 21, 2014 and April 29, 2016, both dates inclusive
(collectively, the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Halyard securities during the Class Period, you have until August
29, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Halyard provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions
worldwide.  The Company operates through two segments, Surgical
and Infection Prevention (S&IP), and Medical Devices.  Halyard
markets its products directly to hospitals and other healthcare
providers, as well as through third-party distribution channels.

Prior to October 2014, Halyard was the Health Care operating
segment of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of personal care,
consumer tissue, and professional products.  Kimberly-Clark's
common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "KMB."  On October 7, 2014, Kimberly-Clark announced
the details for the completion of the spin-off of its Health Care
segment as Halyard Health, Inc., advising its shareholders that
they would receive one share of Halyard Health common stock for
every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock held as of the
close of trading on October 23, 2014, the record date for the
spin-off.

In late 2013, an outbreak of the Ebola virus began in Guinea,
subsequently spreading to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and other West
African nations.  In August 2014, after meeting with health
ministers from eleven countries, the World Health Organization
designated the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern, a rarely-used designation that invokes
legal measures on disease prevention, surveillance, control, and
response by 194 signatory countries.  On September 30, 2014, the
United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared
the first case of Ebola virus in the United States.

As awareness of the Ebola epidemic grew, demand surged for the
personal protective equipment -- i.e., eye shields, face masks and
disposable gowns -- made by Kimberly-Clark's Health Care segment
and subsequently by Halyard, including the Company's MICROCOOL
surgical gowns.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's MICROCOOL
surgical gowns consistently failed effectiveness tests and failed
to meet industry standards; (ii) Kimberly-Clark and Halyard had
knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL surgical gowns to U.S.
workers during the Ebola crisis; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 1, 2016, 60 Minutes reported that Kimberly-Clark and
Halyard had knowingly provided defective surgical gowns to U.S.
workers at the height of the Ebola crisis.  A Company insider
claimed that Halyard's MICROCOOL surgical gowns were prone to
leaks and did not consistently meet the industry safety standards
for the treatment of Ebola, but that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard
had nonetheless "aggressively" marketed the MICROCOOL gowns to
hospitals during the epidemic.

On this news, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3%, to close at
$26.95 on May 2, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


HARRIS MARTIN: Aug. 1 Status Conference Set in Talcum Powder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a status conference was held recently in
a class action lawsuit pending in Illinois federal court, at which
time the court discussed discovery dispute procedures with the
parties in the case, which accuses Johnson & Johnson defendants of
deceptive and fraudulent business practices with regard to its
talcum powder product Baby Powder.

In a May 19 minute entry, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
noted that the next status conference is set for Aug. 1.
Plaintiff Barbara Mihalich filed the class action complaint.


HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on June 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, case no. 1:16-cv-00445, on
behalf of shareholders of Hatteras Financial Corp. ("Hatteras" or
the "Company") who held Hatteras securities and have been harmed
by Hatteras' and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the sale of the Company to Annaly Capital Management, Inc.
("Annaly").

On April 11, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which
Annaly would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Hatteras
through a tender offer (the "Tender Offer").  Following the Tender
Offer, if more than two-thirds of the outstanding Hatteras common
stock (including Hatteras shares owned by Annaly and its
subsidiaries) had been tendered, Hatteras would be merged with and
into an Annaly subsidiary in a "second-step" merger under the
Maryland General Corporation Law, which would permit completion of
the Merger without a shareholder vote if Annaly acquired the
minimum two-thirds of Hatteras outstanding stock.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/HTSnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Hatteras shareholders could
choose one of the following considerations: (1) $5.55 in cash and
0.9894 shares of Annaly common stock; (2) $15.85 in cash; or (3)
1.5226 shares of Annaly common stock.  The complaint points out
that, although Defendants touted that the Offer Price represented
a premium of about 24% percent to the Company's 60-day volume-
weighted average price of Hatteras' stock, Hatteras stock was
trading over the consideration six months prior and was reaching a
high of over $18.00 for nearly all of 2015.

The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement ("14d-9") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May 5, 2016 provided
materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company
and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4),
14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The 14d-9 failed to provide
Hatteras' shareholders with material information concerning the
financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 28, 2016.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com


HELIX ENERGY: Tex. Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Jordan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Case 4:16-cv-
01808 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. provides subsea construction,
inspection, maintenance, repair and salvage services to customers
in the offshore natural gas and oil industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


HONEST CO: Faces Class Actions Over Product Ingredients
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Property Casualty360, reports that
The Honest Co. has been hit with about a dozen class actions
claiming it's anything but honest when it comes to the ingredients
in its products.

Most of the suits allege that its laundry detergent, dish soap and
multiple-surface cleaner contain sodium lauryl sulfate, which can
irritate the skin, despite statements by the company that they
don't use the harsh chemical.  Other suits have been brought over
its infant formula and sunscreen.

Two suits also name actress Jessica Alba, who co-founded The
Honest Co. in 2012 as a healthier alternative to most baby,
cosmetic and household products.

Plaintiffs lawyers have moved to coordinate most of the suits into
multidistrict litigation in Los Angeles, near the company's Santa
Monica, California, headquarters.  An attorney for the company,
William Donovan, a partner at the Santa Monica, California, office
of Cooley, supported the move, which the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation was set to take up at its July 28 hearing
in Seattle.  But in a May 3 filing, he said the company
"vigorously denies the claims and allegations."

The suits come as The Honest Co., valued at about $1.7 billion,
has been working this year to go public.

On March 10, The Wall Street Journal published an article citing
two independent lab tests that found sodium lauryl sulfate in The
Honest Co.'s laundry detergent, despite the company's claims that
it didn't contain the chemical.  Specifically, the tests found
that sodium coco sulfate, the ingredient in The Honest Co.'s
detergent that it claims is gentler on skin, actually contains
sodium lauryl sulfate.

On its blog, The Honest Co. accused The Wall Street Journal of
publishing "factual inaccuracies and misleading statements."

In comparing the two ingredients, the company said that "though
both are derived from coconut oil, their molecular makeup is quite
different."

The lawsuits are the latest series of mass tort actions to come
out of a news report.  Class actions alleging that four brands
mislabeled their "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" were filed
following a Feb. 16 article on Bloomberg.com that used independent
studies to test the products.  And an episode of "60 Minutes" last
year spurred lawsuits over the labeling of Lumber Liquidators
Inc.'s laminated wood flooring.

In addition to the lawsuits before the multidistrict litigation
panel, two class actions brought in September 2015, which have
since been consolidated, challenge The Honest Co.'s "natural"
claims in several of its products.  They also claim its sunscreen
doesn't work at all, leaving people with severe sunburns.

And an April 6 lawsuit brought by the Organic Consumers
Association claims its organic premium infant formula isn't
actually organic.  That lawsuit, the company wrote on its blog,
"we wholeheartedly believe will be dismissed."


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunroof Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. on June 28 disclosed that
on June 24, 2016, a federal court in California denied in large
part Hyundai Motor America's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
Plaintiffs' Complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging that
Hyundai knowingly concealed from consumers a defect that causes
the vehicles' panoramic sunroofs to spontaneously shatter. The
lawsuit is captioned Glenn v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 8:15-cv-
02052-DOC-KES, and it is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Hyundai models involved in the lawsuit include:

2011-16 Sonata
2011-16 Tucson
2011-16 Veloster
2013-16 Santa Fe and Santa Fe Sport
2013-16 Elantra GT

Potential class members who own or lease one of the affected
Hyundai vehicles listed above may contact Berger & Montague, P.C.
to learn more about the claims alleged and their rights to seek
compensation for damages they have suffered. Berger & Montague,
P.C. is especially interested in speaking with consumers whose
panoramic sunroofs have spontaneously shattered in their affected
Hyundai vehicles as listed above.  The Berger & Montague, P.C.
attorneys prosecuting this class action lawsuit are:

Shanon Carson, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone:  1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-4601
Email:  elechtzin@bm.net

Notably, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs have stated claims for
violations of the consumer protection laws of Alabama, New
Hampshire, Texas and Washington -- the states in which the Named
Plaintiffs purchased their Hyundai vehicles.  Hyundai had argued
that Plaintiffs' allegations based on fraudulent omissions should
be dismissed because, it asserted, Plaintiffs did not allege that
they ever saw or relied on any statement by Hyundai, or would have
seen any disclosure of alleged omission had one been included.
The Court rejected this argument and noted that each of the
Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that they researched their
vehicle before their purchase and that they would not have bought
their vehicle or would have paid less had they known about the
defective panoramic sunroofs.

The Court also declined to dismiss Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act claim.  Although Hyundai argued that Plaintiffs could
not pursue this claim because they did not avail themselves of the
informal dispute resolution procedure it provided in the warranty,
the Court stated that this was not grounds for dismissal.

Finally, the Court declined to dismiss claims as to models of
Hyundai vehicles that were not purchased by Plaintiffs, finding
that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that all models of Hyundai
vehicles with panoramic sunroofs are sufficiently similar.  The
Court stated: "Plaintiffs allege all the models' sunroofs were
made with tempered glass, thinned to improve fuel efficiency, and
coated with ceramic paint . . . Even more, plaintiffs include
numerous complaints lodged by Hyundai owners and lessees with the
[National Highway Traffic Safety Commission].  Taken together, and
taken as true, these allegations are sufficient to show a
similarity between plaintiffs' Hyundai models and the Hyundai
Sonata and Hyundai Veloster."

This class action lawsuit will now proceed to the discovery phase
of the case.

                   About Berger & Montague, P.C.

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  With over 60 attorneys, the firm concentrates its
practice in class action litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and has recovered over $30 billion for its clients
and the classes they represent.


INTERCEPT PHARMA: September 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01123-NRB
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE
This Document Relates To:
          ALL ACTIONS.


TO:      ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
("INTERCEPT") BETWEEN JANUARY 9, 2014 AND JANUARY 10, 2014,
INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on September 8, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, Courtroom 21A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of
$55,000,000.00, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the
Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses and Plaintiffs' expenses in
connection with this Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF
INTERCEPT BETWEEN JANUARY 9, 2014 AND JANUARY 10, 2014, INCLUSIVE,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement ("Notice of Pendency") and a copy
of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by
writing to Intercept Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30217, College Station, TX 77842-
3217, or at www.interceptsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than October 5, 2016) or
submitted electronically no later than October 5, 2016,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, in writing, to
Intercept Securities Litigation, Exclusions, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, 3301 Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, such that it is
postmarked no later than August 11, 2016.  All Members of the
Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class in response to the Notice of Pendency will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be received by each of the
following recipients no later than August 11, 2016:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY  10007-1312

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
TOR GRONBORG or TRIG SMITH
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
JAMES W. PRENDERGAST
60 State Street
Boston, MA  02109

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above or by an
e-mail to Lead Counsel at interceptclaims@rgrdlaw.com.  Copies of
certain pleadings and other documents filed in the Litigation can
also be found at www.interceptsecuritieslitigation.com

DATED: May 23, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


JTEKT CORP: Faces "Lane" Suit Alleging Antitrust Law Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saratoga Lane, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JTEKT Corporation, JTEKT
Automotive North, America, Inc. d/b/a JTEKT North America, Inc.,
Showa Corporation, American Showa, Inc., Yamada Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd., Yamada North America, Inc., Defendants, 2:13-cv-01901-MOB-
MKM (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
violated antitrust laws by entering into a continuing conspiracy
to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of
Electric Powered Steering Assemblies sold in the United States and
elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

The Defendants are global manufacturers and suppliers of Electric
Powered Steering Assemblies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
     38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Phone: (248) 971-2500
     E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
             dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

        - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill, Esq.
     Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
     One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112
     Phone: (207) 791-3000
     E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
             rweill@preti.com
             jmermin@preti.com
             msmith@preti.com

        - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
             wlondon@fklmlaw.com
             mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

        - and -

     Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
     William E. Hoese, Esq.
     Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 238-1700
     E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
             whose@kohnswift.com
             dabrahams@kohnswift.com

        - and -

     Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 496-0300
     E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com

        - and -

     M. John Dominguez, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Phone: (561) 515-1431

        - and -

     Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 838-7797

        - and -

     David A. Young, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue NW; Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600

        - and -

     Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
     Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
     CERA LLP
     595 Market Street, Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
     Phone: (415) 777-2230

        - and -

     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481

        - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South; Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900

        - and -

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 687-1980

        - and -

     Lee Albert, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East; Suite 211
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150

        - and -

     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (917) 438-9102

        - and -

     R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
     Lisa Saveri, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 217-6810


KRAFT HEINZ: "Agles" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Agles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01552 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2016), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 15, 2016, and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00849.

Defendant labeled its products "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese"
despite claims that it does not contain such.

The Kraft Heinz Company is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware. Kraft maintains co-
headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Chicago, Illinois.
Kraft manufactures over 200 food brands, including its cheese
products.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     One California Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 398-8700
     Fax: (415) 398-8704
     Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
            qroberts@finkelsteinthompson.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq.
     JENNER & BLOCK LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 239-5152
     Fax: (213) 239-5162
     Email: klee@jenner.com

          - and -

     Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq.
     JENNER & BLOCK LLP
     353 N. Clark Street
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 222-9350
     Email: dpanos@jenner.com


LATERAL LINK: Former Recruiter Loses Misclassification Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that a
lawsuit filed in May against the legal recruiting firm Lateral
Link was dismissed from state court in Los Angeles, court
documents show.

DeAnne Ozaki, a former recruiter with Lateral Link, had accused
the firm of misclassifying its California workers as independent
contractors.  As a result, Ms. Ozaki claimed, workers were
underpaid and denied certain entitlements.

Ms. Ozaki's lawyer, Cody Knight, who runs an employment boutique
in Los Angeles, filed a request for dismissal with prejudice on
June 27, which was automatically granted.

"We've dismissed the court case in favor of proceeding solely in
arbitration," Mr. Knight said.  He declined to comment on the
status or nature of the arbitration.

Ms. Ozaki's complaint was filed on behalf of herself and other
unnamed Lateral Link employees in California under the state's
Private Attorney General Act, which allows for collective actions.
She was a recruiter at Lateral Link from October 2012 to March
2015, the complaint said.  Before that, Ms. Ozaki led the
trademark division at Universal Music Group.  She was previously
of counsel at Latham & Watkins and a partner at Katten Muchin
Rosenman, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Lateral Link's founder and managing principal, Michael Allen, said
in an email on June 29 that Ozaki's claims were meritless.  A
lawyer for the company, Gordon Rees partner Christopher Cato, said
in an email that the decision by Ms. Ozaki's counsel to drop the
complaint had "vindicated" Lateral Link's position.

In another case that pitted Lateral Link against its former
recruiters, the firm filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in a
federal court in Los Angeles in May.  Lateral Link had accused two
former recruiters in Chicago of stealing client data to start a
rival agency.  That case is also continuing in arbitration.


LKM ENTERPRISES: "Mahrous" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Mahrous, Hamed Yousef and Murad Mubarak, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LKM Enterprises,
LLC, LKM Convenience, LLC and Lenny Motwani, Case No. 2:16-cv-
10141 (E.D. La., June 14, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, plus attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate convenience stores under the names "Brothers
Food Mart" and/or "Magnolia Express" where the Plaintiffs worked
as cooks, cashiers and general store operators.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON JACKSON
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Tel: (504) 599-5953
     Fax: (888) 988-6499
     Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
            mjackson@jackson-law.net

          - and -

     M. Abdullah, Esq.
     Daniel J. Carr, Esq.
     Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA ABDULLAH & CARR, LLC
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4610
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Telephone: (504) 523-2434
     Fax: (504) 523-2464
     Email: jpeiffer@praclawfirm.com
            dabdullah@praclawfirm.com
            dcarr@praclawfirm.com

          - and -

     H. Cottrell, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

          - and -

     Ryan R.C. Hicks, Esq.
     Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
     3700 Buffalo Speedway
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: (713) 338-2560
     Email: rhicks@schneiderwallace.com
            pschneider@schneiderwallace.com


MODELO HEALTH: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARA IVETTE COYA, ROSALIA HIDALGO ZALDIVAR, WALKIRIA MARIA PEREZ
LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MODELO
HEALTH CARE CENTER INC., TULIO QUIRANTES JR, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-22335-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2016), arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

MODELO HEALTH CARE CENTER INC. is an assisted living facility.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


MORGAN STANLEY: "Zajonc" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Zajonc, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, f/k/a Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and
Morgan Stanley, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-05563 (N.D. Cal.,
December 19, 2014), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on June 14, 2016, and assigned
Case No. 9:16-cv-80988.

Morgan Stanley employed Plaintiff as a Financial Advisor
Associate. Zajonc claims to be denied overtime pay.

Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that provides
brokerage and related products and services to millions of
investors nationwide, where Plaintiff worked as a Client Services
Associate.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,
is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
of business located in New York, New York. It is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in New York,
New York. It is a partially owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley is a Delaware corporation that is a bank holding
company registered with the New York Stock Exchange, among other
regulator agencies and authorities with principal place of
business in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley is a parent company
of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cara B. Chomski, Esq.
     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     OUTTEN GOLDEN, LLP
     3 Park Avenue,  29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Email: jms@outtengolden.com

          - and -

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Jason Conway, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Tel: (914) 997-5656
     Fax: (914) 997-2444
     Email: fran@klafterolsen.com
            jason.conway@klafterolsen.com
            seth@klafterolsen.com

          - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
     Susan Hilary Stern, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
     1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
            sstern@shavitzlaw.com

          - and -

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     Julia Rabinovich, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Tel: (415) 638-8800
     Fax: (415) 638-8810

          - and -

     Michael John Palitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, LLP
     830 3rd Avenue
     5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (800) 616-4000
     Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


NANT CAPITAL: "Solak" Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant, Tribune
Publishing Company Plaintiff, v. Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Eddy
Hartenstein, Justin Dearborn, David Dibble, Ellen Taus, Renetta
Mccann, Philip Franklin, Richard Reck, Carol Crenshaw, Donald
Tang, Patrick Soonshiong and Nant Capital, LLC, Defendants and
Tribune Publishing Company, Nominal Defendant, Case 12464 (Del.
Ch., June 15, 2016), seeks damages, costs and disbursements of
this action, attorney and expert fees and such other and further
relief for breach of fiduciary duty.

Tribune has been one of the leading print media conglomerates in
the United States, publisher of, among others, the Baltimore Sun,
Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Sun Sentinel.

Gannett Co. proposed to the Tribune Board to purchase all
outstanding Tribune shares for $12.25 a share, a significant
premium over the prior day's $6.86 closing price. The Tribune
Board consistently evades such offers and favored the offer of
Nant Capital, LLC, a much lesser offer, thus resulting in doubts
about the company's fiscal directions.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (888) 458-9055
      Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             awarden@saxenawhite.com
             jstein@saxenawhite.com

          - and -

      Mary. S. Thomas, Esq.
      Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
      Michael J. Barry, Esq.
      Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100

          - and -

      Katherine M. Ryan, Esq.
      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 558-5516
      Facsimile: (484) 450-2582




NCR CORP: "Meadows" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Michael Meadows, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NCR Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-6221 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages,
costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

NCR Corporation is a provider of computers products and technical
support services including Automated Teller Machines products and
services in the state of Illinois and across the nation. Plaintiff
worked as a technician at their Illinois location. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560


NII HOLDINGS: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
TO:
All Persons and Entities that, During the Period from February 25,
2010 Through February 27, 2014, Inclusive ("Class Period"),
Purchased or Otherwise Acquired the Publicly Traded Securities of
NII Holdings, Inc. and/or NII Capital Corp. and Who Were Damaged
Thereby.  The Eligible Securities Are NII Holdings, Inc. Common
Stock ("NII Stock") (ISIN: US62913F2011), as Well as the Following
Debt Securities ("NII Bonds"): (i) 7.625% NII Bonds, Due April 1,
2021 (ISIN: US67021BAE92); (ii) 8.875% NII Bonds, Due December 15,
2019 (ISIN: US67021BAC37); and (iii) 10% NII Bonds, Due August 15,
2016 (ISIN: US67021BAD10).  Certain Persons and Entities are
Excluded from the Foregoing Definition of the Class, as set forth
in Detail in the Full Notice Mentioned Below.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS
ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the class set forth above (the "Class").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class
Representatives Danica Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab,
Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S, Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers Pension Plan, IBEW Local No. 58 / SMC NECA
Funds, and Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (collectively,
"Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and the Class,
and Defendants Steven P. Dussek, Steven M. Shindler, and Gokul
Hemmady (the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action in the amount of $41,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement
Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims
in the Action (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 at 10:00 a.m. on September 16, 2016
(the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine
whether the Court should: (a) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated as of April 18, 2016; (c) approve the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and
any interest earned thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees
and expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any
other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Fund"); and (d) approve Class Counsel's application for
an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses.  The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing
another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing
to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the website
dedicated to this Action:

In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173009
Milwaukee, WI  53217
(866) 905-8128
www.niisecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
Mark S. Arisohn, Esq.
Serena Hallowell, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
www.ktmc.com
(610) 667-7706

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or received on or before September 28, 2016.  If
you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is
received on or before August 26, 2016.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received on or before August
26, 2016.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

DATED: JUNE 13, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff Landowners Win Map Act Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- of Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that what began
several years ago as a defeated attempt at a class action against
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ultimately
resulted in a win in June for plaintiff landowners in Kirby v.
NCDOT (No. 56PA14-2).  On June 10, 2016, the North Carolina
Supreme Court held that the State's restrictions placed on
property owners under the Roadway Corridor Official Map Act (Map
Act) constitute a taking of their property, requiring the state to
compensate the landowners appropriately.  The case was brought
originally as a putative class action on behalf of nearly 800
landowners who own property subject to the Map Act's restrictions
within the area of the Northern Beltway highway project planned
near Winston-Salem, NC. The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied in Beroth Oil Co. v. NCDOT (Beroth II),
757 S.E.2d 466 (N.C. 2014), aff'g in part and vacating in part
Beroth Oil Co. v. NCDOT (Beroth I), 725 S.E.2d 651 (N.C. Ct. App.
2012), on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish the
existence of a class under N.C. Rule of Civil Procedure 23 because
individual issues in the case predominate over common issues.
Subsequently, the Kirby plaintiffs filed separate complaints
against the NCDOT, which were designated as exceptional and
consolidated for case management.

A Taking Without Just Compensation

Under the Map Act, once the state designates a highway corridor
for a planned project by filing a map, owners of property within
the highway corridor are prohibited from improving, developing or
subdividing the property indefinitely, unless they follow
administrative procedures to obtain relief from the restrictions.
The Kirby court's decision hinged on whether the Map Act's
restrictions on property are an exercise of the police power,
where property is regulated to prevent injury to the public, or an
exercise of eminent domain, where property is taken for public use
because it is beneficial to the public.  An exercise of police
power generally is not compensable, whereas a taking via eminent
domain must be compensated.  The NC Supreme Court agreed with the
Court of Appeals' assessment that the indefinite restrictions
placed upon property owners under the Map Act "are not a valid,
regulatory exercise of police power," as the NCDOT argued.  The
Court reasoned that the "societal benefits envisioned by the Map
Act are not designed primarily to prevent injury or protect the
health, safety, and welfare of the public. Furthermore, the
provisions of the Map Act that allow landowners relief from the
statutory scheme are inadequate to safeguard their
constitutionally protected property rights."  In the eyes of the
appellate courts, the Map Act is a "cost-controlling mechanism"
that allows the State to decrease the price it will have to pay
for the land required to execute future highway projects.  The
Supreme Court punctuated its analysis with the fundamental nature
of constitutional property rights: "From the very beginnings of
our republic we have jealously guarded against the governmental
taking of property."

Individual Determinations & Lessons in Class Certification

The NC Supreme Court sent the Kirby case back to the trial court
to conduct Individual inquiries into the appropriate amount of
compensation for each landowner.  The just compensation due to
each landowner will be determined by the market value of the
property before the NCDOT's taking (i.e., before the corridor map
was recorded) and after the taking.  This calculation must
consider the impact of the restrictions on each plaintiff's
fundamental rights and any effect of the reduction in ad valorem
taxes provided for under the statute.

Although the case did not proceed as a class action, Beroth I and
Beroth II have contributed meaningfully to North Carolina class
action jurisprudence interpreting N.C. Rule 23, which is not as
well-developed as the law surrounding its federal counterpart,
Fed. Civ. P. 23.  The Beroth cases reiterated the trial court's
discretion in class certification matters, as well as the
importance of the predominance factor in determining class
certification.  In upholding the denial of plaintiffs' class
certification motion, Beroth I noted that "the predominance
requirement is 'the primary issue' upon which courts from other
jurisdictions have based their decisions in ruling on motions for
class certification," and "[t]he trial court is justified in
denying the motion [for class certification] where the party
seeking class certification fails to meet this requirement."  In
Beroth II, the NC Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals'
determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification because
individual issues predominate over common issues.

Beroth II also delved further into the class certification
inquiry, holding that it is inappropriate to analyze the
substantive merits of plaintiffs' claims at the class
certification stage.  The trial court had analyzed several aspects
of plaintiffs' takings claim, discerning whether the "substantial
impairment" test or the "ends-means" test was applicable to the
case, to come to the ultimate conclusion that individual
determinations need to be made for each property and therefore
"[c]ommon issues of fact and law would not predominate."
Plaintiffs argued the "substantial impairment" test should have
been applied, not the "ends-means" test.  The NC Supreme Court
ruled, however, that "[i]n determining the propriety of a class
action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs
have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but
rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met."  Citing U.S.
Supreme Court precedent from 1974 (Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
417 U.S. 156, 178, (1974)), and noting the state's reliance on the
interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. 23, the NC Supreme Court declared:
"Here both the trial court and the Court of Appeals improperly
engaged in a substantive analysis of plaintiffs' arguments with
regard to the nature of NCDOT's actions and the impairment of
their properties."  The Court went on vacate the Court of Appeals'
discussion on the merits of the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation
claim, while affirming the denial of class certification: "As we
have noted at some length, we believe that one of the trial
court's fundamental errors was choosing to employ any test to
determine the extent of damages suffered by all 800 landowners and
whether a taking has occurred at this stage of the proceedings."

North Carolina class action law continues to develop in areas
where federal class action law is robust.  For example, our
previous post discusses the Ehrenhaus v. Baker case in which North
Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered for the first time
whether it is legal in a class action settlement agreement for one
party to agree to pay the other's attorneys' fees and expenses.


ONTARIO, CA: "Nevin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Nevin, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of Ontario, Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-01273 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages,
costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Barreiro worked for the City of Ontario CA for 3 years without
being paid overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244)
     ISAAC S. STEVENS, ESQ. (SBN 251245)
     JOHN H. BAKHIT, ESQ. (SBN 246643)
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A Professional Corporation
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Telephone: (916) 446-4692
     Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
     Email: davidm@mastagni.com
            istevens@mastagni.com
            jbakhit@mastagni.com


PACSUN: Judge Grants Class Certification in PAGA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
L. John Bird, Esq. -- lbird@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on June 22, 2016,
Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
ruled on a motion to for class certification in the PacSun
bankruptcy, Case No. 16-10882.  In 2011, two plaintiffs filed
actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws.  One of the Plaintiffs was granted class certification in
February, 2016.  After PacSun filed for bankruptcy, these
plaintiffs moved for authority to file bankruptcy proofs of claim
as representatives of the PAGA class for the class.

It is worth noting that instances in which bankruptcy courts
approve of class treatment for class-action claims is not terribly
common.  Often, the Court will rule that the bankruptcy claims
process is just as likely to provide adequate notice and recovery
to potential claimants as the class-action process -- but without
the additional costs of class counsel (which is often upwards of
25% of any class recovery).  As held by the Third Circuit in a
prior case:  "All creditors were given notice of the insolvency
proceedings, and they were given the opportunity to file claims .
. .  Furthermore, this is not a plenary suit but a liquidation
proceeding which should be concluded as expeditiously as possible
. We see no indication that a class action designation would have
such a result . . ."  Opinion at *7-8 (quoting SEC v. Aberdeen
Securities Co., 480 F.2d 1121, 1128 (3d Cir. 1973)).

As Judge Silverstein rules in this case, however, "Aberdeen does
not stand for the principle that class claims are, as a rule,
impermissible in bankruptcy case.  Opinion at *9.  Instead, she
looks to the Musicland factors: (1) whether the class was
certified pre-petition; (2) whether the members of the putative
class received notice of the bar date; and (3) whether class
certification will adversely affect the administration of the
estate.  Opinion at *10 (citing In re Musicland Holding Corp., 362
B.R. 644, 654-55 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007)).

In this case, the first factor was met (the class was previously
certified), the second factor was met (the Debtor limited notice
to only a portion of former employees, not all employees who were
members of this class, and Judge Silverstein held that regardless
of whether certification occurred, she would have to address these
claims, satisfying the third factor.  Opinion at *12.  Thus, she
determined that it was appropriate that she exercise her
discretion under Rule 7023.  She then analyzed the elements and
arguments around Federal Rule 23, determining that it was
satisfied in this case.  This portion of the Opinion spans pages
13-20.

Ultimately, Judge Silverstein granted the motion in part,
certifying nearly the exact same class as had been previously
certified:

Class: All hourly, non-exempt employees of PacSun working in
retail locations in the State of California from March 18, 2007
through the 181st day prior to the filing of the bankruptcy
petition concerning Ms. Beeney's claims for:

   (a) failing to authorize and permit employees to take duty-free
rest breaks every four hours or major fraction thereof and to
compensate employees therefor; and

   (b) requiring employees to undergo security checks and perform
closing duties off-the-clock without compensation.

At the end of the day, no matter how infrequent relief of a
specific type is granted, if you have met ALL of the statutory
requirements and you can successfully distinguish contrary case
law, you can obtain the relief you seek.  In some cases it is easy
-- but those cases almost always end up settling.  However, a
litigant will not settle unless they will get more from settling
than they would after getting a Court ruling and paying their
lawyers -- So if they feel certain of winning, their settlement
range is much narrower than if they are uncertain of the outcome.
In a case like this, where certification of a class is infrequent,
settling becomes a more difficult proposition.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: July 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding
In Re Petrobras Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 14-CV-9662 (JSR)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: (1) All purchasers who, between January 22, 2010 and July 28,
2015 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras
("Petrobras"), including debt securities issued by Petrobras
International Finance Company S.A. ("PifCo") and/or Petrobras
Global Finance B.V. ("PGF") on the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE") or pursuant to other domestic transactions (the "Exchange
Act Class"); and

(2) All purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired debt
securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in domestic
transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13,
2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a
March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States
before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders
an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months
beginning after the effective date of the offerings (the
"Securities Act Class").

A class action lawsuit is now pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
under the above caption (the "Action").  The suit is brought on
behalf of investors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws by defendants for purportedly concealing a multi-
year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme. Defendants
have denied the claims and maintain they are not liable for the
injury alleged.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED of the pendency of the Action as a class
action.  You may be a member of the Class whose rights might be
affected by this Action.

YOUR RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER: If you purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Petrobras, including debt securities
issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the NYSE or pursuant to other
transactions occurring in the United States during the Class
Period, or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to August 11,
2014 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in
transactions occurring in the United States, directly in, pursuant
and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in
the United States and/or purchased or otherwise acquired prior to
May 15, 2015 debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or
PGF, in transactions occurring in the United States, directly in,
pursuant and/or traceable to a
March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States,
you are a member of one or both of the Classes.  If you choose to
remain a member of one or both of the Classes, you do not need to
do anything at this time.  You will automatically be included in
either or both Classes unless you request exclusion in accordance
with the procedure set forth below.  Your decision is important
for the following reasons:

If you choose to remain in either or both Classes, you will be
bound by all orders and judgments in this Action.  Your interests
are being represented at no cost to you by the representatives of
the Classes and Class Counsel.  Class Counsel will be awarded fees
and costs only if it succeeds in obtaining a recovery from one or
more defendants.  You may remain a member of the Classes and elect
to be represented by your own counsel at your own expense.  If you
retain separate counsel, you will be responsible for that
counsel's fees and expenses and such counsel must enter an
appearance on your behalf by filing a Notice of Appearance with
the Court and mailing it to Class Counsel at the address below on
or before July 29, 2016.  If you exclude yourself from the Class
and decide to pursue your own action individually, you may not be
able to pursue certain claims due to the lapsing of the statute of
limitations, including claims under Section 11 related to the May
13, 2013 offering.

If you seek to share in any Class recovery, you will be required
to prove your membership in either or both Classes with evidence
of (i) your purchases, acquisitions and sales of Petrobras
securities (including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF);
(ii) that you purchased Petrobras securities in a domestic
transaction and suffered resulting damages, and/or (iii) that you
purchased such debt securities pursuant to or traceable to one of
the registered offerings referenced above.  In addition,
defendants may seek to prove that you did not rely on the
integrity of the market or that you had knowledge of defendants'
alleged misrepresentations or omissions.

If you choose to be excluded from either or both Classes, you will
not be bound by any judgment, nor will you be eligible to share in
any recovery that might be obtained in this Action.  If you
exclude yourself, you may individually pursue any legal rights
that you may have against the defendants.  To exclude yourself
from either or both Classes, you must mail a signed letter by mail
stating that you "request exclusion" from either or both of the
Classes in "In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-9662"
postmarked no later than July 29, 2016, to: Petrobras Securities
Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10280, Dublin,
OH 43017-5780.  Full details on how to be excluded are available
at www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This Notice is only a
summary of the lawsuit.  For more detailed information, including
a complete list of defendants and CUSIPS of the debt securities
and ADSs involved, you may contact Class Counsel, Pomerantz LLP,
600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016, (212) 661-1100, call
the Notice Administrator at (855) 907-3218, or visit
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Rakoffor
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com

To get a copy of this notice in Spanish, Portuguese, French,
Dutch, German, Japanese or Chinese, visit
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com.  PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR
WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FOR INFORMATION OR
ADVICE.

Dated: May 9, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York


PHILADELPHIA: Appeal in "Berry" Suit Pending in Penn. S.C.
------------------------------  --------------------------
Leroy N. Berry, Lawrence H. Duppins, William J. Malizia, Jr.,
Aaron J. Stanford on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Petitioners v. City of Philadelphia, the Respondent,
Case No. 276-EAL-2016 (Penn. Sup. Ct., July 20, 2016), is an
appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from a lower
court decision, Case No. 2738 CD 2015 (Phil. Cty. Ct., June 20,
2016).

The Petitioners Leroy N. Berry, Lawrence H. Duppins, William J.
Malizia, Jr., and Aaron J. Stanford's opening brief was due
June 23, 2016. The Hon. Keith B. Quigley is the assigned Appellate
Court Judge.


REMCON ENTERPRISES: "Davies" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Damian Davies, Plaintiff, v. Remcon Enterprises, LLC, aka Remcon
Environmental, LLC and Joshua D. Jackson, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03456 (D.N.J., June 15, 2016), seeks
unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees
and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants own and/or maintain an environmental company
headquartered in Whippany, Morris County, New Jersey, where Davies
was employed by Defendants, applying polyurethane into concrete
walls using an air brush to waterproof them from contaminants.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Telephone: (201) 687-9977
     Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
     E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


SIMON PROPERTY: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hall and Meagin Lewis, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Simon Property Group,
Inc. and Simon Property Group, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01453 (S.D. Ind., June 14, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SPG owns and operates malls all over the country with their
principal place of business located at 225 West Washington Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46204. Plaintiff worked as a Guest Services
Manager in their Springfield, Illinois location. He claims to be
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
     Christopher S. Stake, Esq.
     DELANEY &DELANEY LLC
     3646 N. Washington Boulevard
     Indianapolis, IN 46205

          - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAWGROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email:  gshavitz@Shavitzlaw.Com
             cjones@Shavitzlaw.Com


SPOTIFY USA: Faces Cal. Lawsuit Over Premium Subscription Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Case no. 4:16-cv-3533
(N.D. Cal. June 24, 2016), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, equitable relief (including but not limited to
restitution), damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Automatic Purchase Renewal Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law to address Defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair,
and/or fraudulent practices with respect to paid subscription
Premium Subscription Service (PSS).

Spotify is an international commercial music streaming service
with more than 75 million active users worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
     Sara D. Avila, Esq.
     Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
     MILSTEIN ADELMAN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
     10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 396-9600
     Fax: (310) 396-9635
     E-mail: gwade@majfw.com
             savila@majfw.com
             mcastaneda@majfw.com

          - and -

     Derek J. Meyer, Esq.
     LEONARDMEYER LLP
     5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
     Los Angeles, CA 90036
     Phone: (310) 220-0331
     E-mail: rmeyer@leonardmeyerllp.com


SUBARU: Certain Loss Claims Over Takata Airbags Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
certain economic loss claims against Subaru over its use of
potentially dangerous Takata air bags are moving forward in Miami
federal court.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno on June 21 entered the second
of several orders on motions to dismiss filed by automakers who
used Takata air bags, the subject of the biggest auto recall in
history.

Plaintiffs across the country allege they overpaid for their cars
and saw resale value drop when recalls began.  Judge Moreno is
also hearing separate personal injury claims related to the air
bags, which have so far been linked to 10 deaths and more than 100
injuries.

Judge Moreno's order on Subaru was consistent with his decision on
Mazda, entered June 15.

Proceeding are claims that Subaru knew about the air bag defect
and fraudulently concealed it and that car owners whose air bags
did not explode still lost money.

But the judge dismissed claims made under New Jersey law because
the named plaintiffs did not live or buy their cars there.  He
also tossed unjust enrichment claims, finding that because the
named plaintiffs did not buy their cars directly from Subaru, they
could not allege the automaker had improperly lined its pockets.

"We are pleased that the court sustained several of our claims and
found that the defective air bags do not have to blow up for there
to be a defect," said lead plaintiffs counsel Peter Prieto of
Podhurst Orseck in Miami.  "We're also pleased that our
allegations of knowledge on the part of the automakers were found
to be sufficient and plausible."

Plaintiffs counsel will review Judge Moreno's order to determine
what claims will be included in the next amended complaint, Mr.
Prieto said, adding that they will also determine whether
additional class representatives should be added.

Subaru did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Besides Subaru and Mazda, defendants in the case are Takata, BMW,
Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota.  Judge Moreno in December denied
motions to dismiss federal law claims that Takata and Honda
conspired to hide air bag defects.

More than 28 million Takata air bag inflators have already been
recalled, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
announced plans in May to support the recall of at least 35
million more.


THERANOS INC: C.M. & S.G. Sues Over Fake Testing Machine
-----------------------------------------------------
C.M. and S.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Theranos, Inc. and Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-03349 (N.D. Cal.,
June 15, 2016), seeks actual, treble, punitive damages and any
other form of monetary relief, restitution, disgorgement and other
equitable relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
allowed under the law, reasonable attorney fees and costs and
such other and further relief resulting from negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Arizona's
Consumer Fraud Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Theranos, Inc. introduced a new procedure for drawing and testing
blood by capturing only a few drops in a tiny, proprietary vial
and analyzing the sample on a device it named "Edison." The latter
was supposed to be able to run dozens of tests using a single
miniscule sample, generate results within minutes instead of days
or weeks and deliver results right to a patient's smartphone using
a Theranos developed app. It partnered with Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., an operator of a nationwide drugstore chain.

Their machine, however, did not work and they engaged third party
laboratories to do the tests secretly. Plaintiffs availed of such
services and claimed flawed test results.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
     David Stein, Esq.
     Clay Stockton, Esq.
     GIRARD GIBBS LLP
     One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 350-9700
     Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
            ds@classlawgroup.com
            rcs@classlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com


PREMIER CRU: Settles Wine Class Action, July 27 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simmone Shah, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that a
settlement decision on the Premier Cru class action lawsuit was
reached May 16, affecting approximately 4,450 Premier Cru
customers who were left without the bottles of wine they paid for
before the company declared bankruptcy Jan. 8.

Michael Kasolas, the Premier Cru trustee, was given responsibility
for liquidating assets and determining allocations of funds after
a creditor's hearing Feb. 24.  On March 29, he filed a motion to
liquidate Premier Cru assets and sell more than 78,800 bottles of
wine, using the assets to repay creditors.

While Mr. Kasolas stated that the majority of the wines stored
with Premier Cru were owned by the estate, many Premier Cru
customers, such as Michael Podolsky, said the bottles belonged to
the customers who paid for their orders but never received them.
Mr. Podolsky filed a class action lawsuit against Mr. Kasolas in
April.

Both parties reached a settlement because resolving the dispute
would "consume many months or years of litigation, at much greater
expense and at significant risk of loss," according to a court
document.  During this time, the document stated, the cost to
continue the court battle would extinguish the trust funds, making
it difficult to continue storing the bottles.  The document
further stated that "there might be nothing left of value to
recover" when the case was finished.

"Judge Lafferty, the bankruptcy judge, suggested the parties
entered judiciary mediation, and we negotiated in that context to
a resolution," said Merle Meyers, an attorney for Meyers Law
Group, one of the firms representing Premier Cru customers.

The mediation occurred intermittently from May 3 to May 16, when a
settlement was reached.

The lawsuit arrived after several complainants sued Premier Cru
for almost $70 million in October 2015, claiming the company
failed to deliver purchased wine.  Shortly after, Fox Ortega
Enterprises -- the company which owned Premier Cru -- filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The wine in Mr. Kasolas' possession will be sold to one or more
bulk buyers, with the proceeds being distributed to members of the
class action suit.  Customers whose orders were available for
shipping or pickup by Jan. 8, 2016 will be able to redeem their
purchased bottles.

The amount customers will receive varies, depending on factors
such as the number of class members who request to be excluded
from the class and the selling price of the bottles.  The law
firms representing the customers, Meyers Law Group and Chavez &
Gertler LLP, are seeking 25 percent of the settlement, an award of
up to $650,000 dollars to cover attorney fees and costs.

While the settlement marks closure for Premier Cru, the FBI is
still investigating Premier Cru owner John Fox for an alleged
Ponzi scheme.  Mr. Fox filed for personal bankruptcy Feb. 8.

FBI spokesperson Prentice Danner declined to comment on the
lawsuit, but added that it is still an ongoing investigation.  A
hearing will be held July 27 at the Oakland Bankruptcy court to
approve the proposed settlement.


PRIDE MOBILITY: Becomes Bellwether Antitrust Class Action in UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Reynolds, Esq. -- mreynolds@mcguirewoods.com -- of
McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that much ink
and conference time have been spent discussing it, but now we have
a real example of an antitrust class action in the UK.  This is
the first under the 2015 rules allowing such claims, Schedule 8 of
the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) confirmed on June 21 that
the case had been started when it published a "notice of an
application to commence collective proceedings under section 47B
of the [UK] Competition Act 1998."  This application represents
the first step in the process.  Under it, the proposed class
representative is seeking an order permitting her to act as the
class representative, determining that the case is suitable to be
heard as a class action, and deciding that it should be opt-out
(as opposed to opt-in).  Another key issue at this initial stage
will be whether the proposed representative has adequate financing
to bring the claim.

It was widely assumed that the first such case would be based on a
cartel fining decision from an antitrust regulator (likely the UK
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or the European
Commission).  Instead, the case rests on a 2014 decision by the
CMA's predecessor, the Office of Fair Trading, finding the
potential defendant in this class case, Pride Mobility Products
Limited, to have engaged in a type of online resale price
maintenance (RPM) in relation to mobility scooters.

The benefit for the class in basing the claim on this regulatory
decision is that it does not have to prove liability for an
infringement of competition law; that has already been
established.  Nevertheless, as an aside, it's notable that that
decision itself was somewhat controversial (or at least cutting-
edge at the time) since it equated a ban on advertising online
prices below Pride's recommended retail prices with RPM.  The CMA,
however, has not been deterred, and subsequently several cases
have been decided on the same lines.

A bellwether for UK antitrust class actions.  The CAT's view on
the Pride case will be very closely watched and it is likely
significantly to impact whether future claims under the class
procedure are brought.  A previous type of class procedure,
replaced by the 2015 rules, allowed for a "specified body" to
bring a consumer claim on behalf of two or more individuals to
seek monetary damages for an infringement of competition law.
Only one such body was ever specified, and it only ever brought
one claim, relating to price fixing of replica football/soccer
kits.  The procedure was widely seen as a failure.

How closely will class actions in the UK parallel those in the
United States?  The UK's new class procedures were expressly
designed to address the shortcomings of the prior regime and
produce a significant number of class action cases, but there was
intense debate in the period up to adoption.  Therefore,
safeguards were included to stop what are seen as the excesses of
the U.S. class action system (including the bringing of
unmeritorious claims, the availability of treble damages, and the
use of contingency fee arrangements by lawyers).  Hence, the CAT
will now in this first stage of the case very closely scrutinise
the various points mentioned above (suitability of the
representative and of the case for class treatment, etc.).
Nevertheless, U.S. practice and arguments, where there are
parallels, are likely to figure strongly.

What about the money?  The allegation is that up to 34,000 Pride
customers, who bought mobility scooters between 2010 and 2012, may
each be entitled to around a GBP200 refund, or even more in
specific cases.  The potential claim has been valued at up to a
total of GBP7.7 million, including interest.

It's not known on what financial basis the lawyers are acting.
However, under the regime, lawyers cannot use DBAs (damages based,
or contingency, agreements).  This means that third party funding
(which is allowed) is likely to play a significant role, with
conditional fee arrangements being put in place.  The UK's normal
"loser pays costs" rule does apply, so an unsuccessful claimant
will be liable for the defendant's costs.  After the event (ATE)
insurance can be used, but the premiums cannot be recovered from
the losing party.

Small business fast-track claims are playing out at the same time,
on a smaller stage.  Although high profile, this class action case
is not the only cutting-edge development in competition litigation
currently before the CAT.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced
other changes, one of which was the introduction of fast-track B2B
claims, aimed at making it easier for small and medium-sized
businesses to make competition law challenges before the CAT.  The
first two of these settled at an early stage, but the third (the
Socrates case) is currently proceeding.

A big issue in the fast-track procedure is the ability of the CAT
to cap recoverable costs against the loser.  The CAT has taken a
view on that issue already in the Socrates case and has set the
cap on the claimant's recoverable costs (against the defendant) at
GBP200,000 and the cap on the defendant's recoverable costs from
the claimant at GBP350,000 (both sides can spend more if they
wish, but could not recover it from the other).  For most
companies at the smaller end of the "small and medium enterprises"
scale in the UK, this level of cost risk is very high indeed, and
is likely to discourage many from making use of the procedure.
The CAT may have to rethink these levels if it wants more claims
to be made.


REEL GROUP: Faces "Cruz" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RENE CRUZ on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REEL GROUP INC., Defendant, Case
4:16-cv-01782 (S.D. Tex., June 21, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides vendor inspection, third party inspection,
certification, testing and manpower services for the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     4409 Montrose Blvd.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

          - and -

     Udyogi A. Hangawatte, Esq.
     KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


RESOURCE AMERICA: "Gansman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Gansman, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Resource America, Inc., Michael
J. Bradley, Carlos C. Campbell, Jonathan Z. Cohen, Edward E.
Cohen, Donald W. Delson, Hersh Kozlov, Andrew M. Lubin, Richard
Reiss, Jr., John S. White, The Corporation Trust Company,
Corporation Trust Center, Regent Acquisition Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 160601492 (Pa. Com. Pleas, June 15, 2016), seeks
preliminarily and permanent enjoinment from consummating, or
closing a merger; rescissory damages; reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under
the Securities Act of 1933.

Resource America will be acquired by C-III Capital Partners LLC
("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Regent Acquisition
Inc. Plaintiff owns Resource America common stock and allege that
the transaction is onerous and is undervalued.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
     Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
     David M. Promisloff. Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
     PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
     100 N. 22nd Street, Unit 105
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 259-5156
     Fax:(215)600-2642
     Email: profv@prolawpa.com
            david@prolawpa.com
            ciarlanto@prolawpa.com

          - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302)295-5310

          - and -

     Katharine M. Ryan
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     Richard A. Maniskas
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484)588-5516


SYNTHES INC: Trial Commences in Suit Over Norian Bone Cement
------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Bellisle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the physician who used a non-FDA-approved bone cement during a
woman's spinal surgery and the company that ran an illegal test
market to promote the dangerous product should be held accountable
for her death, a lawyer for the woman's daughter told a jury on
June 27.

Reba Golden was vibrant and healthy when she agreed to let
Dr. Jens Chapman operate on her back in 2007, but the surgeon
never told Golden or her family that he planned to use a bone
cement associated with blood clotting and patient deaths, said
attorney Rick Friedman, who represents Cynthia Wilson in a lawsuit
against the surgeon, the University of Washington and Synthes Inc.

Dr. Chapman and Jansjoerg Wyss, former CEO of Synthes, knew the
product's risks but continued to use it on patients in a scheme
that one doctor called "human experimentation," Mr. Friedman said
in opening statements of the trial.

This case is about "two men who could not admit they made a
mistake," Mr. Friedman.

Michael Madden, a lawyer representing Dr. Chapman and the
university, said Mr. Friedman distorted and ignored the facts by
claiming Dr. Chapman "put the interests of Synthes and Mr. Wyss
ahead of the best interest of his patient."

"This is a case about a 67-year-old woman who fell and broke her
back," Mr. Madden told the jury.  The injury caused her extreme
pain, and Chapman used a safe procedure to try to help her, Madden
said.  He added Dr. Chapman did not use the Norian bone cement in
a way that put Golden at risk.

The trial before King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers is
expected to last up to eight weeks.

Mr. Wyss recognized in the 1990s that as baby boomers aged, they
were more susceptible to spinal injuries and if he could get a
bone cement on the market to use in surgeries, the product would
be worth about $500 million, Mr. Friedman said.  Synthes bought a
California-based company called Norian and altered one of its
products to be used on the spine, the lawyer said.

Taking the product through the normal regulatory process would be
time-consuming and costly.  Instead, Mr. Wyss and other company
executives wanted to send the bone cement to surgeons across the
county, who would use it and publish articles that could be used
to secure Food and Drug Administration approval, Friedman said.

But Dr. Michael Sharp, a Synthes manager of regulatory affairs,
objected and began "writing to people in the company saying, 'We
can't do this,'" Mr. Friedman said.

Another doctor, Kenneth Lambert, also warned against the idea,
saying while the Norian bone cement had great potential, it needed
testing before being used on patients.

Dr. Chapman used it on a pig in 2002, and it died.  A week later,
the company went forward with the test market.  Mr. Lambert again
voiced concerns about the product's safety and said sending it to
untrained surgeons "amounts to human experimentation," Friedman
said.

In June 2002, Dr. Chapman submitted a proposal that laid out
questions and concerns about the cement.  Most disturbing, he
said, was how only a small amount could cause severe clotting.  He
suggested a two-year timeline at the cost of about $400,000, Mr.
Friedman said.  But three months later, and before any studies
were done, Chapman put it in a patient's spine,
Mr. Friedman said.

"Over the next five years, things did not go well for Synthes,"
Mr. Friedman said.

By July 2003, there were three adverse events and one patient
death.  Two more patients died in 2003 and 2004, and by January
2007, the FDA demanded that Synthes put a label on the product
saying it can't be used on the spine, Mr. Friedman said.

But when Reba Golden went to Dr. Chapman and he agreed to operate
on her spine, he used the Norian bone cement and she bled to death
on the table, Mr. Friedman said.

"For elective spinal surgery, no one bleeds to death,"
Mr. Friedman said. "It's like getting struck by lightning."

In 2010, Synthes, Norian and company executives pleaded guilty to
federal charges that they promoted the product for unauthorized
use, Madden said.

But Dr. Chapman was not involved in the "criminal enterprise that
led to the federal prosecution of Synthes," he said.  Dr. Chapman
did not take part in the test market, and he never used Norian to
treat compression fractures, Mr. Madden said.

Dr. Chapman, a world-renown spinal surgeon, did 300-plus surgeries
and used Norian less than 1 percent of the time,
Mr. Madden said.

"He was not part of any plan to profit from using Norian in the
spine," Mr. Madden said.


TNG WAXING: "Lowe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Jasmine Lowe and Vanessa Boone, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. TNG Waxing, LLC,
DSN Waxing LLC, Final Frontier Waxing LLC and Douglas Bauer,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03112 (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate European-style waxing salons throughout
Brooklyn where Plaintiffs worked as waxing specialists. They claim
to have been denied overtime pay and worked through their rest
breaks.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     2747 Coney Island Ave
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Tel: (718) 808-2224
     Fax: (718) 808-2224
     Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


VISA: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Over High ATM Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will hear an
appeal from Visa and MasterCard seeking to throw out a lawsuit
accusing the credit card companies of illegally fixing ATM prices.

The justices on June 28 agreed to review an appeals court ruling
that said the antitrust case against the companies and three major
banks could go forward.

A group of consumers and independent ATM operators argue that
payment processors illegally coordinated with Bank of America
Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. to adopt
anticompetitive fees.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2013, but a federal appeals
court revived the claims last year.

The lawsuit claims the companies impose contract terms that
prevent independent ATM operators from charging lower fees when
consumers use debit cards that access cheaper processing networks.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: To Pay $50MM in Civil Penalties to State of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that on June 28,
the same day that Volkswagen announced a $14.7 billion deal to
settle claims in the U.S. with consumers and the federal
government related to its alleged diesel emissions deceptions,
Texas unveiled a partial settlement, calling for the German
carmaker to pour some $50 million into state coffers.

In 2015, Texas had filed a consumer protection lawsuit against the
company.

"Volkswagen misled Texas consumers by marketing and selling its
diesel vehicles as 'clean' with knowledge that these vehicles were
designed to meet emission standards only when being tested," Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton's office said in a statement
announcing the partial settlement.

Under the terms of the deal, Volkswagen has agreed to pay $50
million to the state of Texas in civil penalties and attorneys'
fees for the car company's alleged violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).  The AG will determine at a
later date what portion of that $50 million will be designated to
cover either attorney fees or civil penalties, according to
Kayleigh Lovvorn, a spokesperson for the state agency.
Texas consumers will have the opportunity to participate in
Volkswagen's nationwide buy-back program.

The company has also pledged to establish a $2.7 billion trust
fund for projects designed to mitigate environmental harm caused
by Volkswagen vehicles' excess emissions.  Under the terms of the
mitigation trust agreement, approximately $192 million is
allocated for Texas state projects.

Unresolved are claims related to Volkswagen's alleged violations
of the state's environmental protection laws, the AG's office
said.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Kiwi Customers Won't Get Emissions Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Burrows and Grace Cabell, writing for Newshub, report that
there will be no compensation for Kiwi customers affected by last
year's revelations the company cheated on diesel emissions tests,
Volkswagen New Zealand's general manager says.

The comment follows a ginormous payout of US$21.7 billion to US
Volkswagen owners that saw the company's American branch buy back
vehicles embroiled in the scandal, and pay each customer up to
$10,000 extra to compensate for their blunder.

According to lawyers, the hefty settlement makes it the largest
automobile-related consumer class-action lawsuit in US history.
But Tom Ruddenklau says what's happening with Volkswagen in the US
is different because car companies there face much more rigorous
tests than in other countries.

"In the US, the emission regulations over there are up to six
times more stringent than anywhere else in the world," he
explained.

Mr. Ruddenklau says due to the high standards, a remedy for the
issue in the US has proved much more elusive, forcing them to buy
the cars back.

"They actually haven't got a technical solution sorted for this
issue yet, so because they haven't they're providing some
compensation for customers.

"Thankfully here in New Zealand, we had our solution developed
earlier this year, and we've started the rollout with customers,
which is just a software update on the vehicles."

Mr. Ruddenklau says because of the fairly easy fix, Kiwi customers
would not be receiving any compensation from the company -- but
said they have been "working really hard to be up front and
honest" with affected Volkswagen owners.

"There's a technical issue, but there's also a relationship issue
that you've got to deal with as well," he said.

"New Zealanders appreciate people being up front and just saying
it how it is, so we've tried to keep them informed as best we
can."

Volkswagen admitted in September 2015 to inserting a 'defeat
device' in some of its vehicles that allowed it to circumvent
diesel emission regulations.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Promises Full Restitution to Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes.com reports that there's something for everybody in the $15
billion Volkswagen settlement the government and private attorneys
annou.  Diesel owners get the opportunity to sell their cars back
to VW at pre-scandal prices plus at least $5,100 in cash for their
troubles.  A roster of the country's biggest class-action firms
will get an unspecified but huge amount of fees, likely measured
in the billions. And buried in the 42-page proposed settlement are
tidbits for other folks, including the professional association
for state attorneys general and manufacturers of electric cars.

In total the settlement looks like a smaller version of the $200
billion tobacco settlement state AGs and many of the same private
lawyers announced in 1998.  The fees won't be as rich -- lawyers
who got in on the tobacco settlement are still pulling hundreds of
millions a year in fees from what is essentially a tax on smokers
-- and it doesn't include the egregious terms that effectively
handed a handful of big tobacco companies led by Philip Morris a
cartel on cigarette sales.

The settlement does promise full restitution to consumers plus a
few thousand more in cash and a path for VW to mitigate the damage
it caused by spreading excess nitrogen oxide, a lung irritant.  It
also spreads the money widely among mostly Democratic interest
groups and contains another less savory feature of the 1998
tobacco deal: A $20 million payment to the National Association of
Attorneys General. (The AGs got $103 million from Big Tobacco).

The plaintiffs steering committee is led by San Francisco class-
action firm Lieff Cabraser, which contributed $138,700 to
Democratic causes in the 2014 election cycle, according to
OpenSecrets.org.  The 21 other firms on the committee include all
the big players -- and mostly Democratic Party supporters -- in
class actions: Motley Rice, Hagens Berman, Weitz & Luxenberg,
Boies Schiller and Grant & Eisenhofer.

The filing notes an "extraordinary aspect" of the settlement, also
borrowed from the tobacco MSA: "None of the settlement benefits
for Class Members will be reduced to pay attorneys' fees or to
reimburse expenses of Class Counsel."  This is an easily debunked
statement, since the negotiators on VW's side of the table most
certainly don't consider the fees to be coming from a separate pot
of money.  But as with the tobacco settlement, it may give the
attorneys some measure of cover from objectors and writers like
this one who criticize the size of their payday for brokering an
agreement when the government provided most of the muscle.

Also included in the proposed settlement is a $2.7 billion fund to
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by at least as much as the
doctored diesels are spewing out.  And then there's $2 billion
more "to create infrastructure for and promote public awareness of
zero emissions vehicles."  Could that include charging stations
and advertising for Elon Musk's zero-emission Tesla cars? Perhaps.

The payment to the attorneys general is a controversial move. They
are settling their own claims and wrested an injunction from VW to
prevent future misbehavior.  Some AGs justify such payments as
reimbursement for their investigative expenses, but as tax-
supported officers it is not clear why their professional
association should get the money.  As noted back in 2008, the $103
million from Philip Morris quickly grew to $140 million and
supplied most of NAAG's earnings after that.  The professional
group also once leased space in a building owned by the American
Legacy Foundation, now Truth Initiative, an antismoking group the
AGs established in the settlement with $1.4 billion in tobacco-
industry funding.

The VW deal certainly doesn't include protection from competition
for VW like Philip Morris got.  And the attorneys who negotiated
it point out they are still suing VW's Porsche subsidiary and
others including Bosch.  So there's no evidence they are trying to
make life unduly easy for VW.


VOLVO: Superior Court Grants New Trial in Crashworthiness Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that in
a ruling that hinted at potentially overturning the prohibition
against introducing federal standards in strict products liability
cases, the state Superior Court granted a new trial in a
crashworthiness case against Volvo.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the court June 24 vacated a
defense verdict and granted a new trial in the case, Webb v. Volvo
Cars of North America, which involved a car crash that killed a 2-
month-old.

The panel's decision focused on whether the state Supreme Court's
game-changing 2014 decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex would have
allowed defense counsel to introduce evidence showing the vehicle
complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile, who wrote the 24-page
memorandum opinion, said evidence about complying with federal
standards may be permitted in the two available theories of
liability outlined by the Tincher court, but he said the frontline
appeals court would defer making its decision on the issue until
it arises in a case that has been fully developed in the post-
Tincher era.

Although Stabile declined to predict the state Supreme Court's
stance, his opinion spotlighted Tincher's impact in
crashworthiness cases.

"Tincher expressed two theories of strict products liability --
consumer expectations and risk-utility.  It is possible that
government/industry standards evidence could be admissible under
both theories, one and not the other, or neither," Judge Stabile
said.

"It is also possible that the admissibility of such evidence will
depend upon the circumstances of a case.  The Tincher court noted
the possibility of shifting the burden of production and
persuasion to the defendant under the risk-utility theory.  This
burden shift, if it becomes law, may provide defendants a basis to
advocate for the admissibility of government or industry standards
evidence in risk-utility cases."

Whatever Tincher's impact may be, Stabile said, the trial court in
Webb should have advised the jury to disregard the evidence.
According to Stabile, the action in Webb stemmed from a car crash
in which a woman driving a 1997 Volvo sedan made a left turn
across traffic and was broadsided by another car.  Mark Webb
brought the action on behalf of his son, Sabino Webb, a 2-month-
old killed during the collision.  He raised negligence and strict
liability claims based on allegations that the Volvo lacked rear
door bars that prevented intrusion during a side impact collusion.

The federal guidelines were allowed into the case to specifically
refute the negligence claims, but, after the court entered a
directed verdict for the defendants on the negligence issue, the
court did not advise the jury to disregard the evidence about the
federal guidelines.  The jury eventually entered a defense verdict
on the strict products liability claims.

Mr. Webb appealed, arguing that the evidence about the federal
guidelines should not have been allowed into the consideration of
the strict liability claims.

Judge Stabile noted that, under Gaudio v. Ford Motor, Section 402A
of the Restatement (Second) of Torts means that evidence about
compliance with government standards is inadmissible in a strict
liability action.  That case, Stabile said, was part of a line of
cases that relied on the 1978 Supreme Court decision Azzarello v.
Black Brothers, which the Tincher decision overturned.

The defendants, Judge Stabile said, argued that Tincher overruled
the prohibition against introducing government or industry
standards "by implication."  Mr. Webb countered that Gaudio
remained good law.

Judge Stabile, however, said the decision to overrule Azzarello
did not provide the panel with a sufficient basis to disregard the
evidentiary rules outlined in Gaudio and related cases.

"While it is clear after Tincher that the firm division between
strict liability and negligence concepts no longer exists, it is
not clear that the prohibition on evidence of government or
industry standards no longer applies," Judge Stabile said.


WAL-MART: "Manfredi" Mislabelling Suit transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Manfredi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00612 (S.D. Tex., March 9, 2016), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 15, 2016, and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-06183.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has advertised and sold millions of
containers of its Great Value branded "100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese" products as "100%" Parmesan cheese despite findings
proving otherwise.

Wal-Mart is a nationwide retail conglomerate selling its house
brand "Great Value.".

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq.
     TRAMMELL PC
     3262 Westheimer Rd., Suite 423
     Houston, TX 77098
     Tel: (713) 890-2894
     Email: info@trammellpc.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Jason Michael Hopkins, Esq.
     GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP
     2200 Ross Ave, Ste. 5200
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Tel: (214) 665-3660
     Email: hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com


WALTER INVESTMENT: October 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on June 29 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of Walter Investment Management Corp. (NYSE:WAC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK
OF WALTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP. FROM MAY 9, 2012 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 26, 2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a
hearing will be held on October 14, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Ursula Ungaro, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of Florida, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL
33128, Courtroom # 12B, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in this Action for
consideration including the sum of $24,000,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Co-Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one third of the
Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$500,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $30,000 in
aggregate to Class Representatives, should be approved; and (4)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 20, 2016 (the
"Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Walter
Investment Management Corp. ("Walter Investment") during the
period from May 9, 2012, through February 26, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Settlement Class"), your rights may be affected by
this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of
claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in
Walter Investment common stock.  If you have not received the
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may
obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator
at: Walter Investment Management Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)274-4004; (Fax) (610)565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than September
1, 2016 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later
than September 1, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the
Notice.  All members of the Settlement Class who have not
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Class Representatives must
be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and
mailed to each of the following such that it is received no later
than September 28, 2016:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
400 North Miami Avenue
Miami, FL 33128

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016

Jeremy Lieberman, Esq.
Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Co-Class Counsel

Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq.
David Elbaum, Esq.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Tracy A. Nichols, Esq.
Stephen Warren, Esq.
Holland & Knight LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131

Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may write to
Co-Class Counsel at:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016

Jeremy Lieberman, Esq.
Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: June 13, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


WEST SACRAMENTO, CA: "Barreiro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Barreiro, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. City of West Sacramento, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-at-00717 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Barreiro worked for the City of West Sacramento for 3 years
without being paid overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Mastagni, Esq.
     Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
     Ace T. Tate, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Telephone: (916) 446-4692
     Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces Trial Over Alleged $900MM Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
Emery P. Dalesio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
veteran of the multi-level marketing business is going on trial on
federal charges related to what government investigators called a
$900 million scam that bilked 1 million people across the United
States and abroad.

A jury expected to be selected on July 5 will have to decide
whether Paul Burks intended to mislead investors five years ago
with fanciful promises of 125 percent returns at a time the
economy limped out of the Great Recession.

Burks is charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to
commit tax fraud in one of the biggest cases of the past decade
involving alleged Ponzi schemes.  If convicted, Mr. Burks could be
sentenced to 65 years in prison and fined $1 million.  The trial
could run four weeks.

From a small, brick building in Lexington, North Carolina,
Mr. Burks ran an online auction site.  Participants were charged
up to $1 to bid for the chance to buy heavily discounted consumer
products like iPads.  To drive customers to his auction site,
Burks in 2011 launched a complicated online vehicle called
ZeekRewards.  It offered people who invested money, promoted the
company on other websites and recruited other participants a share
of auction profits.

Investments were capped at $10,000, but people could invest on
behalf of their spouses, children or other relatives. Some
mortgaged homes to raise their investment.

"The co-conspirators used this money, in Ponzi-like fashion, to
pay other victim-investors in the scheme and to personally enrich
themselves," prosecutors wrote in a court filing last month.  "Put
simply, Mr. Burks lied daily to obtain hundreds of millions of
dollars for the scheme."

The Securities and Exchange Commission shut down ZeekRewards about
20 months later, calling it a Ponzi scheme on the verge of
collapse.

Mr. Burks' former chief operating officer, Dawn Olivares, and her
tech-savvy stepson have made plea deals with prosecutors and are
expected to testify against him.  Ms. Olivares became friends and
worked with Burks on multilevel marketing companies since in the
1990s. Burks asked Olivares to join ZeekRewards and prosecutors
said she collected at least $7.2 million for herself.

Mr. Burks allegedly pocketed about $11 million from ZeekRewards in
2011 alone, prosecutors said.  He was a former county music disc
jockey and performed as a magician in nursing homes in the 1980s
and '90s.  After Mr. Burks' company was shut down, federal
investigators found a massive country music memorabilia collection
that has since been auctioned off to refund investors.

Though Mr. Burks and his colleagues reported to the Internal
Revenue Service that investors received more than $96 million in
taxable disbursements in 2011, ZeekRewards actually paid out less
than $13 million that year, prosecutors said.

"The vast majority of income reported to the IRS was fictional and
had neither been earned nor received by the victim-investors,"
prosecutors wrote in a summary of their trial evidence.  "As a
result, individual victim-investors filed false tax returns with
the IRS reporting phantom income that they never actually
received."

Defense attorneys counter that Mr. Burks didn't misrepresent the
ZeekRewards program and didn't mastermind a Ponzi or pyramid
scheme.  The parent company behind Burks' operations sold actual
products -- bids for the penny auction site or stakes in
ZeekRewards, defense attorneys wrote in summing up expected trial
arguments.

The ZeekRewards program collapsed under the pressure of rapid
growth from more than 57,000 distinct users after the first year
to 1.25 million months later just before the SEC shut it down,
attorney Noell Tin wrote.

"Growth of this magnitude was overwhelming," he said.

Nonetheless, the parent company of ZeekRewards paid out 53 percent
of the $939 million it generated during its lifespan,
Mr. Tin wrote.  "In other words," Burks' attorneys said, his
company "made good on the core of its promise."

Federal investigators said earlier investors were paid with money
coming from new investors as in a classic Ponzi scheme.

A court-appointed receiver said he's recouped $356 million from
ZeekRewards executives and about 9,000 investors who made big
money before the collapse.  About $250 million has been returned
to about 107,000 claimants, attorney Kenneth Bell said in an
email.  His pursuit of another more than $225 million includes a
bank in the former Soviet country of Moldova.





                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *